DOCSLIB.ORG

2002 Catchable-Trout Stocking Program Changes by Tom Greene

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2002 Catchable-Trout Stocking Program Changes by Tom Greene 2002 Catchable-Trout Stocking Program Changes by Tom Greene photo-Art Michaels Beginning this season, the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Com- As with past practice, changes for the 2002 season will mission will produce approximately 3.8 million adult trout include the addition of new water areas, some expansions to for distribution in the waters of the Commonwealth. In currently stocked waters, and the removal of several waters comparison with past practice, this figure represents a reduc- from the stocking program. tion of about 1.4 million trout from the 5.2 million or so stocked in 2001. New waters Pennsylvania’s state fish culture stations are currently For the 2002 season, new-water additions consist of three faced with challenges related to both water quantity and water previously stocked waters that return to the stocking program quality. To take prompt action to address these issues, it was as a result of completed dam maintenance repair and a necessary at least temporarily to reduce the number of adult landowner agreement to provide public angling. trout produced in our state hatcheries and stocked in state Cloe Lake, Jefferson County. Following a two-year waters open to free public fishing. period of drawdown for dam maintenance and repairs, this As part of this change, Commis- 25.5-acre lake is expected to be avail- sion fisheries managers have worked able for trout angling for the 2002 closely with law enforcement and season. If the water levels are re- other staff to develop a plan to real- stored according to schedule, the locate the stocking of hatchery trout lake will receive a preseason and an for the 2002 season and beyond. inseason stocking of brown and rain- The foundation of the Commission’s bow trout. stocked trout program is based on Harvey Creek, Luzerne the classification of waters by re- County. As part of an agreement source-based fisheries management between the Commission and Theta considerations. Under this method Land Corporation, a 1.5-mile stream of allocating trout, the number of section extending from T-812 (Jack- trout stocked in a stream or lake is son Road) downstream to T-497 determined by neutral and consis- (Pavlick Road) will be reopened to public angling for the 2002 tent factors that are applied on a statewide basis. For example, season. As with past practice, this section of stream will be when two waters share the same characteristics, they are managed under the Delayed-Harvest, Artificial-Lures-Only stocked at the same rate (number of trout per water acre) program and will receive a preseason and one inseason stock- regardless of their location, county or municipality. The ing of brook, brown and rainbow trout. resource-based system of allocating stocked trout considers Roaring Brook, Lackawanna County. The stream sec- biological, physical and social factors in determining stocking tion from the dam at Elmhurst Reservoir downstream for a rates. These include abundance of wild trout, recreational use distance of 2.0 miles will also be reopened to public angling for potential (nearness to a road, amount of public ownership 2002 as part of the agreement between the Commission and and the amount of posting), the size of waters stocked (width Theta Land Corporation. This stream section will be stocked of the stream) and human population density. preseason and inseason with brook, brown and rainbow trout. With the reduction of 1.4 million trout from the state- wide production system, most stocked waters will have a Expansions to current waters decrease in the stocking rate and the frequency of stocking for the 2002 season. Stocking rate reductions (totaling about Changes in classification and/or stocking limit extensions 1.23 million trout) will account for the vast majority of the have led to an increase in the stocking program on the necessary 1.4-million trout reduction in the stocking pro- following waters for the 2002 season: gram. This will be accomplished by changing the stocking rates under the statewide allocation formulas. The remainder Antietam Lake ................................................................ Berks County of the reduction (172,000 trout) will occur through the Appenzell Creek.......................................................... Monroe County removal of specific waters from the statewide stocking pro- Asaph Run ...................................................................... Tioga County gram. Bear Creek ............................................................... Schuylkill County Bowery Run .............................................................. Lancaster County (10 sections), low angler use (10 sections) and poor water Bradford Reservoir #3 ................................................ McKean County quality (8 sections). Briar Creek Lake ...................................................... Columbia County In addition, 8 lakes will be removed from the stocking Brush Creek-Little ........................................................ Fulton County program. The reasons for removing these lakes include: Childrens Lake..................................................... Cumberland County Access, habitat and or posting problems (2 lakes), privately Conestoga Creek, Little-West Branch ....................... Lancaster County owned lakes that are too small to justify the continuation of Deer Creek ...................................................................... York County stocking in a time of reduced allocations (3 lakes), and lake Deer Creek-North ........................................................Mercer County drainage for maintenance repairs (3 lakes). Doubling Gap Lake ............................................. Cumberland County Waters that will be removed from the stocking program Goss Run Dam ......................................................... Clearfield County beginning with the 2002 season are as follows: Halfway Lake ................................................................ Union County Harvey Creek .............................................................. Luzerne County Allegheny River ............................................................Potter County* Hickory Run Lake ....................................................... Carbon County Allen Creek ................................................................ Somerset County Hoffman Run .................................................................... Elk County Angelica Lake.................................................................. Berks County Indian Lake ...................................................... Westmoreland County Antietam Creek-West Branch ................................... Franklin County* Janesville Dam .......................................................... Clearfield County Aquashicola Creek ...................................Carbon & Monroe counties* Jones Creek................................................................... Wayne County Asaph Run-Left .............................................................. Tioga County Kooser Lake ............................................................... Somerset County Bailey Run ..................................................................... Potter County Lake Creek.................................................................. Monroe County Barnetts Run................................................................. Fulton County Lake Loch Lomond........................................................... Pike County Bear Creek-Big (01) ..................................................... Carbon County Lake Took-A-While .................................................... Luzerne County Bear Creek-Big (02) ..................................................... Carbon County Lily Pond .......................................................................... Pike County Bear Run ........................................................................... Elk County Lions Lake ................................................................. Lebanon County Beaver Run .................................................................. Chester County Loch Alsh Reservoir ............................................ Montgomery County Beaver Run ............................................................... Clearfield County Mahoning Creek.......................................................... Carbon County Beaver Run .............................................................. Columbia County Marquette Lake ......................................................... Lebanon County Beaver Rod & Gun Club Dam ................................... Bedford County Middletown Reservoir ............................................... Dauphin County Beaverdam Creek ....................................................... Bedford County* Mountain Creek .......................................................... Fayette County Beaverdam Run ......................................................... Cambria County Muddy Creek .................................................................. York County Belmouth Run ................................................................... Elk County Muddy Creek-North Branch ........................................... York County Bender Run ............................................................... Cambria County Muddy Creek-South Branch ............................................ York County Bennett Branch-South Branch .................................. Clearfield County Princess Run ..............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PA Environment Digest – Holston & Crisci
    _ ______ A An Update on P Environmental _ Issues in Environment Digest Pennsylvania Edited By David E. Hess, Holston & Crisci July 17, 2006 Rivers Conservation and Fly Fishing Youth Camp Graduates 32 Thirty-two students graduated from the 12th annual Rivers Conservation and Fly Fishing Youth Camp on June 23, completing a course of study that included subjects such as hydrogeology, wetland study, and benthic macro-invertebrate study. The keynote address was provided by Dr. Robert Behnke, Professor Emeritus of Fisheries Biology at Colorado State University, and one of the premier salmonid biologists in the world. The students also participated in stream habitat restoration on the Yellow Breeches Creek as well as courses in fly tying, casting and fishing techniques. The camp was again held at Allenberry on the Yellow Breeches Resort in Boiling Springs. Amber Mancini of Old Forge was this year's recipient of the Leon Chandler Award. The award is given in memory of the late Mr. Chandler to the student who best exemplifies the qualities demonstrated to previous campers by Leon. Amber exhibited a quiet can-do attitude, showed a willingness to help other students and share her knowledge and went about her tasks quietly. Registrations for the 2007 camp will begin to be accepted on November 1. For more information visit the Rivers Conservation and Fly Fishing Youth Camp website. Visit Our Professional Services Directory Support Your Sponsors Session Schedule The Senate and House return to session on September 25. On the Hill • Bills on the Governor’s
    [Show full text]
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Darter Etheostoma Sellare
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Maryland darter Etheostoma Sellare Introduction The Maryland darter is a small freshwater fish only known from a limited area in Harford County, Maryland. These areas, Swan Creek, Gashey’s Run (a tributary of Swan Creek) and Deer Creek, are part of the larger Susquehanna River drainage basin. Originally discovered in Swan Creek nymphs. Spawning is assumed to species of darters. Electrotrawling is in 1912, the Maryland darter has not occur during late April, based on other the method of towing a net from a boat been seen here since and only small species, but no Maryland darters have with electrodes attached to the net that numbers of individuals have been been observed during reproduction. send small, harmless pulses through found in Gashey’s Run and Deer the water to stir up fish. Electrofishing Creek. A Rare Species efforts in the Susquehanna are Some biologists suspect that the continuing. Due to its scarcity, the Maryland Maryland darter could be hiding darter was federally listed as in the deep, murky waters of the A lack of adequate surveying of endangered in 1967, and critical Susquehanna River. Others worry large rivers in the past due to limited habitat was designated in 1984. The that the decreased darter population technology leaves hope for finding darter is also state listed. The last is evidence that the desirable habitat Maryland darters in this area. The new known sighting of the darter was in for these fish has diminished, possibly studies would likely provide definitive 1988. due to water quality degradation and information on the population status effects of residential development of the Maryland darter and a basis for Characteristics in the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • December 20, 2003 (Pages 6197-6396)
    Pennsylvania Bulletin Volume 33 (2003) Repository 12-20-2003 December 20, 2003 (Pages 6197-6396) Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/pabulletin_2003 Recommended Citation Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, "December 20, 2003 (Pages 6197-6396)" (2003). Volume 33 (2003). 51. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/pabulletin_2003/51 This December is brought to you for free and open access by the Pennsylvania Bulletin Repository at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Volume 33 (2003) by an authorized administrator of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Volume 33 Number 51 Saturday, December 20, 2003 • Harrisburg, Pa. Pages 6197—6396 Agencies in this issue: The Governor The Courts Department of Aging Department of Agriculture Department of Banking Department of Education Department of Environmental Protection Department of General Services Department of Health Department of Labor and Industry Department of Revenue Fish and Boat Commission Independent Regulatory Review Commission Insurance Department Legislative Reference Bureau Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Public School Employees’ Retirement Board State Board of Education State Board of Nursing State Employee’s Retirement Board State Police Detailed list of contents appears inside. PRINTED ON 100% RECYCLED PAPER Latest Pennsylvania Code Reporter (Master Transmittal Sheet): No. 349, December 2003 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Legislative Reference Bu- PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN reau, 647 Main Capitol Building, State & Third Streets, (ISSN 0162-2137) Harrisburg, Pa. 17120, under the policy supervision and direction of the Joint Committee on Documents pursuant to Part II of Title 45 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (relating to publication and effectiveness of Com- monwealth Documents).
    [Show full text]
  • York County Natural Areas Inventory
    YORK COUNTY NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY A COMPONENT OF THE YORK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEPLAN YORK COUNTY NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY York County Planning Commission www.ycpc.org September, 1997 Amended - October 27, 2004 The original Natural Areas Inventory was funded in part by a Keystone, Park and Conservation Fund Program Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and a Community Development Block Grant from York County. PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Preface ..................................................................... iii Chapter I - Introduction ..........................................................1 Uses For The York County NAI .............................................3 Chapter II - Natural History Overview of The County ....................................5 Physiography and Geology ..................................................5 Soils ..................................................................6 Vegetation ..............................................................8 Disturbance ............................................................11 Chapter III - Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory Data System ........................13 Natural Areas Inventory Methods ............................................14 Information Gathering .....................................................14 Map and Air Photo Interpretation ............................................14 Field Work ............................................................15 Data Analysis ...........................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • HIGH ALLEGHENY PLATEAU ECOREGIONAL PLAN: FIRST ITERATION Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean
    HIGH ALLEGHENY PLATEAU ECOREGIONAL PLAN: FIRST ITERATION Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean The High Allegheny Plan is a first iteration, a scientific assessment of the ecoregion. As part of the planning process, other aspects of the plan will be developed in future iterations, along with updates to the ecological assessment itself. These include fuller evaluations of threats to the ecoregion, constraints on conservation activities, and implementation strategies. CSS is now developing a standard template for ecoregional plans, which we have applied to the HAL first iteration draft report, distributed in 2002. Some of the HAL results have been edited or updated for this version. Click on the navigation pane to browse the report sections. What is the purpose of the report template? The purpose of creating a standard template for ecoregional plans in the Northeast is twofold: — to compile concise descriptions of methodologies developed and used for ecoregional assessment in the Northeast. These descriptions are meant to meet the needs of planning team members who need authoritative text to include in future plan documents, of science staff who need to respond to questions of methodology, and of program and state directors looking for material for general audience publications. — to create a modular resource whose pieces can be selected, incorporated in various formats, linked to in other documents, and updated easily. How does the template work? Methods are separated from results in this format, and the bulk of our work has gone into the standard methods sections. We have tried to make each methods section stand alone. Every section includes its own citation on the first page.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Areas Inventory of Bradford County, Pennsylvania 2005
    A NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2005 Submitted to: Bradford County Office of Community Planning and Grants Bradford County Planning Commission North Towanda Annex No. 1 RR1 Box 179A Towanda, PA 18848 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Science Office The Nature Conservancy 208 Airport Drive Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 This project was funded in part by a state grant from the DCNR Wild Resource Conservation Program. Additional support was provided by the Department of Community & Economic Development and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through State Wildlife Grants program grant T-2, administered through the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. ii Site Index by Township SOUTH CREEK # 1 # LITCHFIELD RIDGEBURY 4 WINDHAM # 3 # 7 8 # WELLS ATHENS # 6 WARREN # # 2 # 5 9 10 # # 15 13 11 # 17 SHESHEQUIN # COLUMBIA # # 16 ROME OR WELL SMITHFI ELD ULSTER # SPRINGFIELD 12 # PIKE 19 18 14 # 29 # # 20 WYSOX 30 WEST NORTH # # 21 27 STANDING BURLINGTON BURLINGTON TOWANDA # # 22 TROY STONE # 25 28 STEVENS # ARMENIA HERRICK # 24 # # TOWANDA 34 26 # 31 # GRANVI LLE 48 # # ASYLUM 33 FRANKLIN 35 # 32 55 # # 56 MONROE WYALUSING 23 57 53 TUSCARORA 61 59 58 # LEROY # 37 # # # # 43 36 71 66 # # # # # # # # # 44 67 54 49 # # 52 # # # # 60 62 CANTON OVERTON 39 69 # # # 42 TERRY # # # # 68 41 40 72 63 # ALBANY 47 # # # 45 # 50 46 WILMOT 70 65 # 64 # 51 Site Index by USGS Quadrangle # 1 # 4 GILLETT # 3 # LITCHFIELD 8 # MILLERTON 7 BENTLEY CREEK # 6 # FRIENDSVILLE # 2 SAYRE # WINDHAM 5 LITTLE MEADOWS 9
    [Show full text]
  • Luzerne County Act 167 Phase II Stormwater Management Plan
    Executive Summary Luzerne County Act 167 Phase II Stormwater Management Plan 613 Baltimore Drive, Suite 300 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 Voice: 570.821.1999 Fax: 570.821.1990 www.borton-lawson.com 3893 Adler Place, Suite 100 Bethlehem, PA 18017 Voice: 484.821.0470 Fax: 484.821.0474 Submitted to: Luzerne County Planning Commission 200 North River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 June 30, 2010 Project Number: 2008-2426-00 LUZERNE COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction This Stormwater Management Plan has been developed for Luzerne County, Pennsylvania to comply with the requirements of the 1978 Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act, Act 167. This Plan is the initial county-wide Stormwater Management Plan for Luzerne County, and serves as a Plan Update for the portions or all of six (6) watershed-based previously approved Act 167 Plans including: Bowman’s Creek (portion located in Luzerne County), Lackawanna River (portion located in Luzerne County), Mill Creek, Solomon’s Creek, Toby Creek, and Wapwallopen Creek. This report is developed to document the reasoning, methodologies, and requirements necessary to implement the Plan. The Plan covers legal, engineering, and municipal government topics which, combined, form the basis for implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan. It is the responsibility of the individual municipalities located within the County to adopt this Plan and the associated Ordinance to provide a consistent methodology for the management of stormwater throughout the County. The Plan was managed and administered by the Luzerne County Planning Commission in consultation with Borton-Lawson, Inc. The Luzerne County Planning Commission Project Manager was Nancy Snee.
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • A Smart Start for Safe Paddling on Pennsylvania's Water Trails
    SPECIAL: PULL-OUT POSTER >>>>>>> A SmartStart for Safe Paddling on Pennsylvania’s Water Trails Long before airports, highways or even trains, water trails. As you paddle or row, always remember to Pennsylvania’s streams, rivers and lakes provided a “Wear It!” Your life jacket is the most important piece of means of transportation for native inhabitants. gear you have while paddling. In addition, knowledge is Today, you can travel these same routes, enjoying critical for boating safely. The statewide network of water the state’s natural resources while getting glimpses of trails shown below provide the recreational opportunity rich history and tradition on an official Pennsylvania for enjoyment and discovery, and this special “pull-out water trail. Water trails are recreational waterways on a poster” provides much of the core knowledge to help lake, river or ocean between specific points, containing you have a safe day on the water. Keep it handy, as a access points and day-use and camping sites for the reference on what to know before you go! To view more boating public. Water trails emphasize low-impact use detailed water trail maps, visit the Fish & and promote resource stewardship. The Pennsylvania Boat Commission’s website at Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) and its water trail www.fishandboat.com. partners invite you to explore these unique Pennsylvania ERIE EK PENNSYLVANIA! RE 21 C H C N E R BRADFORD F WARREN SUSQUEHANNA R E TIOGA IV R 17 Y N MCKEAN E CRAWFORD H EG SUSQ LL UEH WAYNE A AN NA R D IV E POTTER E L R LACKAWAXEN RIVER A 18 W A R FOREST E LACKAWANNA R VENANGO 1 SULLIVAN IV ER CAMERON PINE CREEK WYOMING K LYCOMING EE CR CLINTON K OC CLARION RIVER LS YA 5 ELK O LUZERNE L PIKE A MERCER LL EG JEFFERSON H E R ANNA RIVER N IVE SQUEH COLUMBIA Y CLEARFIELD R SU NA CH MONROE R EHAN RAN I QU T B V SUS ES R R E CLARION H W IVE E R R C A LAWRENCE EK N CENTRE NN IV RE RA HA 14 R BUTLER RE ANK C B UE E D B T SQ AR .
    [Show full text]
  • Subdivisions Colorado C L E a R C R E E K CO
    Fire & Ambulance Districts Park County Subdivisions Colorado C L E A R C R E E K CO. NAME TWP_RNG NAME TWP_RNG R76W R75W R74W R73W ADVENTURE PLACER T9S,R78W ELKHORN RANCHES T10S,R75 R72W ALMA T9S,R78W ELKHORN SUBDIVISION T9S,R76W ALMA BUCKSKIN CREEK AMENDED T9S,R78W ESTATES OF COLORADO T14S,R75W Duck Creek Truesdell Creek Indian Creek ALMA FOREST T9S,R78W ESTATES OF COLORADO 2 AMEND T14S,R75W Yankee Creek Cub Creek ALMA GROSE AND TREWEEK SOUTH T9S,R78W ESTATES OF COLORADO AMENDED T14S,R75W ALMA MERCURY HILL SUB T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY T9S,R77W North Elk Creek ALMA MISC TRACTS T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BEAVER MEADOWS T9S,R77W ALMA MOYNAHAN ADD SOUTH T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BRISTLECONE T9S,R77W North Fork Tanglewood Creek ALMA NORTH RHODESIA SOUTH T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BURGIN ADDITION T9S,R77W ALMA PARK ESTATES T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BUSINESS PARK T9S,R77W North Elk Creek ALMA PLACER SUBDIVISION T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BUTTERMILK T9S,R77W 1038 T Francis Creek Church Fork ALMA RHODES 2ND ADDITION T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY CLARK AND BOGUES T9S,R77W Produced by Park County GIS PLATTEPLATTE CANYONCANYON FPDFPD FAIRPLAY COLUMBINE PARK T9S,R77W Scott Gomer Creek ALMA RHODES 3RD ADDITION T9S,R78W June, 2011 Threemile Creek FAIRPLAY GOLD PAN MH VILL T9S,R77W 65 T6S ALMA RHODES ADDITION T9S,R78W Geneva Creek T North Fork South Platte River Elk Creek FAIRPLAY HEIGHTS T9S,R77W Deer Creek ALMA RIVERSIDE T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY JANES ADDITION T9S,R77W Burning Bear Creek T66 ALMA VIDMAR T9S,R78W Camp Creek FAIRPLAY JOHNSON ADDITION T9S,R77W 63 Elk Creek ANGELFIRE T9S,R78W Lamping Creek T 1184 FAIRPLAY
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Wetland Condition on a Watershed Basis in the Mid-Atlantic Region Using Synoptic Land-Cover Maps
    ASSESSING WETLAND CONDITION ON A WATERSHED BASIS IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION USING SYNOPTIC LAND-COVER MAPS ROBERT P. BROOKS*, DENICE H. WARDROP, and JOSEPH A. BISHOP Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, 302 Walker Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 USA (*author for correspondence, phone: 814-863-1596, fax: 814-863-7943, e-mail:[email protected]) Abstract. We developed a series of tools to address three integrated tasks needed to effectively manage wetlands on a watershed basis: inventory, assessment, and restoration. Depending on the objectives of an assessment, availability of resources, and degree of confidence required in the results, there are three levels of effort available to address these three tasks. This paper describes the development and use of synoptic land-cover maps (Level 1) to assess wetland condition for a watershed. The other two levels are a rapid assessment using ground reconnaissance (Level 2) and intensive field assessment (Level 3). To illustrate the application of this method, seven watersheds in Pennsylvania were investigated representing a range of areas (89–777 km2), land uses, and ecoregions found in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Level 1 disturbance scores were based on land cover in 1-km radius circles centered on randomly-selected wetlands in each watershed. On a standardized, 100-point, human-disturbance scale, with 100 being severely degraded and 1 being the most ecologically intact, the range of scores for the seven watersheds was a relatively pristine score of 4 to a moderately degraded score of 66. This entire process can be conducted in a geographic information system (GIS)-capable office with readily available data and without engaging in extensive field investigations.
    [Show full text]